Nice. Faster, bigger, quicker than Starks?
It's always nice when someone shoots their mouth off without checking the facts.
One more thing I've noticed about Starks - he doesn't have that afterburner that Grant has. Grant in the open field is gone. Like Gregorious. 40 times aren't the end all be all stat of football speed. Football speed can be deceptive. It's like Jerry Rice, arguably the best NFL player of our lifetime, didn't have a smoking fast 40 speed.
I do like both Grant and Starks, but for different reasons. Starks is more likely to have a consistent 4 or 5 yard run. Grant is more likely to break the big one.
Originally Posted by: zombieslayer
I think James Starks is far more quicker than Ryan Grant, but we haven't had a chance to see James Starks run straight and out run someone. He just doesn't have enough games for me to make an intelligent assessment from in that regard.
40 times are fairly useless, I agree and just noticed you said James Starks doesn't have the after burner speed that Ryan Grant does. Read what I said above about the sample. We haven't seen James Starks get chased down from behind, yet. The times we've seen Ryan Grant were when the box was loaded and he burst through. Obviously when players are running towards you and you're going full speed the other direction, you shouldn't get caught, lol.
And to your last point, I say again, back to the not enough tape on James Starks to make such a statement, but with the sample we have, I don't believe I can disagree with that.
Of course, James Starks can prove he has the extra gear, I just don't believe he's given us anything to make a knowledgeable assessment on it yet that he doesn't have it.